One can distinguish between phronesis and the other intellectual virtues by looking at the way these wisdoms are reached. For phronesis, deliberation is necessary. One must consider all angles of the issues and come to an appropriate conclusion. The other intellectual virtues, however, are based on learned skills. They become areas of expertise by practice.

“So whether women have a moral right to terminate their pregnancies is irrelevant within virtue theory, for it is irrelevant to the question “In having an abortion in these circumstances, would the agent be acting virtuously or viciously or neither?” pg 14
I do not really understand his argument here because later he discusses the ways in which the question of morality is based on Aristotle’s virtue theory.

“Nothing that happened in the past is subject to decision—e.g. no one decides to have sacked Troy, for no one deliberates about the past, either, but rather about what is to come, and what is possible, whereas it is not possible for what has happened not to have happened—so Agathon was right:
For even from god this power is kept, this power alone:
To make it true that what’s been done had never been.” pg 178
I think this is an important concept to learn: that what is done is done. So, why suffer the past? One should just move on; live in the today.

“This eye of the soul does not come to be in its proper condition without excellence, as has been said and as is clear in any case; for chains of practical reasoning have a starting point—‘since the end, i.e. what is best, is such-and-such’ (whatever it may be: for the sake of argument let it be anything one happens to choose), and this is not evident except to the person who possesses excellence, since badness distorts a person and causes him to be deceived about the starting points of action. So it is evident that it is impossible to be wise without possessing excellence.” pg 188
I am not sure I understand.

“These convictions, I suspect, are rooted in the desire to solve the problem of abortion by getting it to fall under some general rule such as “You ought not to kill anything with the right to life but may kill anything else.” pg 15
I believe this is an accurate depiction of the abortion argument.

“Imagine (or recall) a woman who already has children; she had not intended to have more, but finds herself unexpectedly pregnant. Though contrary to her plans, the pregnancy, once established as a fact, is welcomed—and then she loses the embryo almost immediately. If this were bemoaned as a tragedy, it would, I think be a misapplication of the concept of what is tragic…The application of tragic becomes more appropriate as the fetus grows, for the mere fact that one has lived with it for longer, conscious of its existence, makes a difference.” pg 18
I simply have trouble seeing the logic here.